From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA31855 for caml-redistribution; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:13:35 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA23844 for <weis@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:48:22 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from indigo.recherche.enac.fr (root@indigo.recherche.enac.fr [195.220.158.66])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA17155
	for <Pierre.Weis@inria.fr>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:48:21 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from cyan.recherche.enac.fr (cyan.recherche.enac.fr [195.220.158.73]) by indigo.recherche.enac.fr (8.8.6/8.6.11) with SMTP id QAA31434; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:47:29 +0200
Message-Id: <199804161447.QAA31434@indigo.recherche.enac.fr>
Received: by cyan.recherche.enac.fr
	(1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA18230; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:47:28 +0200
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:47:28 +0200
From: Pascal Brisset <brisset@recherche.enac.fr>
To: Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@inria.fr>
Cc: Christophe.Raffalli@univ-savoie.fr, Donald.Syme@cl.cam.ac.uk,
        caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Subject: Re: Non-destructive record update??
In-Reply-To: <199804161419.QAA16455@pauillac.inria.fr>
References: <199804251226.OAA01300@lama-d132.univ-savoie.fr>
	<199804161419.QAA16455@pauillac.inria.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: weis

Pierre Weis writes:
> We propose the notation {expr with label1 = e1; lable2 = e2 ... } to
> mean the record returned by the expression expr with fields label1,
> label2, ... set to values e1, e2, ...

 Is it a good idea to ``hide'' the copy of one object behind a simple
keyword ? I think such operation should be more explicit. Something with
the 'new' keyword like

	new expr with {label1 = e1; lable2 = e2 ... }

makes things a bit clearer.

 Anyway, a function Record.copy would be enough !

--Pascal